New - Makerbot Replicator 2

[store.makerbot.com]
And... discuss!

meh.

$2200 to print in PLA only.

[www.youtube.com]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2012 03:54PM by akhlut.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

They make a lot of claims about their print quality and yet the prints form the last generation replicator are some of the worst I have ever seen [thingiverse-production.s3.amazonaws.com] This is a picture uploaded by makerbot themselves.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

pause feature looks nice

but im sure reprap will be seeing that soon if not already

$2200 for PLA only because it lacks a heated bed (single extruder too) seems a bit steep, but if they sell a bunch - it isn't too steep for their customers.

Makerbot's website says it uses 32% less energy than ABS printing. Funny, my printers use about 70% less without the heated bed. The heated bed uses about 10 amps when it is on (most of the time) and the rest of the printer draws only around 5 amps at their peak. I think they meant to say it uses only 32% less power than if they made it to print with ABS. Either Way, it's funny, they started out making printers without heated beds, and now 3 printers later, they are back to making printers without heated beds.

I am waiting on the tutorial of how to make super large rafts.

The Makercare service plan at $350 seems a bit fishy though. If it runs so well, does it even need a service plan?

The top operating temperature up to only 32°C or 90°F made 2 the last 2 months here impossible to run it during the day without air conditioning.

if its PLA only bet its got some big fans

as PLA inside a nice hot case like that i bet is gonna be horrible for bridges

I think it's a big step in the right direction. Its starting to look professional, it has a decent print size and even though the price is high its not unreachable. The prints look to be reaching a resolution that is competitive with other 3d printing methods. The PLA only is disappointing but I wonder if there might be an ABS upgrade later. Now the question is, when is someone going to create a reprap derivative with a larger print area, better resolution and faster printing?

i'm glad they've finally started to go away from the plywood design, i just hope you can still use the regular software with it eg replicatorg printrun...

jzatopa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Now the question is, when is someone going
> to create a reprap derivative with a larger print
> area, better resolution and faster printing?

What are you talking about?

We have all kinds of printers with bigger build areas.

We print at far higher speeds then they do.

Our resolution exceeded their claimed resolution months ago. I have printed at 0.02mm layers and have provided 0.1mm configs since I released Tantillus. My XY resolution is finer than theirs and my Z resolution is 0.4 micron (less than half a micron per step). They are just making claims because no one can correct them on their site.

In my thingiverse profile you will see prints from my Repstrap that exceeded their claims more than a year ago.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Sublime I meant all in one package, not each feature available in different machines. I am guessing that you mean that your reprap bests these specs. Any chance you have a site with the build up of it so I could check it out? What is it's build volume? Could you post a link to your work that is printed with a Z resolution .4 microns (.0004mm) on a fused filament extrusion printer, I'd be curious to see the finish quality. With all the different iterations out there it is very easy to miss something.

jzatopa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sublime I meant all in one package, not each
> feature available in different machines. I am
> guessing that you mean that your reprap bests
> these specs. Any chance you have a site with the
> build up of it so I could check it out? What is
> it's build volume? Could you post a link to your
> work that is printed with a Z resolution .4
> microns (.0004mm) on a fused filament extrusion
> printer, I'd be curious to see the finish quality.
> With all the different iterations out there it is
> very easy to miss something.

You clearly do not understand.

Makerbot claims a print layer of 0.1mm (100 micron) but a resolution of 0.0025 (2.5 microns)
I said I have printed at 0.02mm (20 micron) and have a resolution of 0.0004 (0.4 microns)

Most of the machines built by the future is 3D are larger than the Replicator and can achieve the same (or better) resolutions as the replicator. Plus hundreds of other manufactures of Mendel variant machines. But none of them had 10 million dollars invested in them so they do not have big ads making claims like Makerbot.

Feel free to follow the links in my signature to see what high quality prints actually look like.

Tantillus is only 100 x 100 x 100 because I designed it to be portable. Plus printing large things with FFF (FDM) is almost impossible without warping really bad. Have a look at the warping on the big white blocks in the Replicator 2 page, the side facing away from us and hidden behind the ruler is so warped it could be used to hold bananas.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

I was reading your Z resolution and looking at layer resolution on the makerbot site, sorry it's been a long day at work. It looks like they spec their resolution at 11 microns for X,Y and 2.5 microns for Z.

I looked at your links and prints and they look good. I want to be able to do prints like that in 12"X12"X12", and I know warping is an issue. I have an idea on how to get around that problem but I am still absorbing as much as I can on what people have tried already so I don't try to reinvent the wheel.

I see how the pic looks warped on the replicator 2 site but I held up a straight edge to the image and that rear edge is straighter then it looks. I think the ruler is causing the edge to look more warped then it is. Its really hard to tell from one pic though, time will tell how well the Replicator 2 prints.

jzatopa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was reading your Z resolution and looking at
> layer resolution on the makerbot site, sorry it's
> been a long day at work. It looks like they spec
> their resolution at 11 microns for X,Y and 2.5
> microns for Z.
>
> I looked at your links and prints and they look
> good. I want to be able to do prints like that in
> 12"X12"X12", and I know warping is an issue. I
> have an idea on how to get around that problem but
> I am still absorbing as much as I can on what
> people have tried already so I don't try to
> reinvent the wheel.

Thanks. I do have a printer that can print large but was never able to print the entire bed size without a lot of warping. To get around this you can use a heated chamber but then you can't sell your machines because of patents on the heated chamber for 3D printing. You can design parts that have stress relief like corrugated walls which straighten out from the forces of the shrinking but then you end up with an object with corrugated sides. If you figure something out we would all love to know about it.

>
> I see how the pic looks warped on the replicator 2
> site but I held up a straight edge to the image
> and that rear edge is straighter then it looks. I
> think the ruler is causing the edge to look more
> warped then it is. Its really hard to tell from
> one pic though, time will tell how well the
> Replicator 2 prints.

You may be correct about the ruler making it look warped but I do also notice they have the top surface facing us (hexs showing through top layers) which makes me think they have the bottom facing away for a reason.

I also hear it is closed source (investors in the way?) which I believe is against the license they released the replicator 1 with and this is clearly a derivative of that printer. I am curious to see if they completely re-wrote skeinforge or if they are breaking that license too like BFB did.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

CNET says the 2 color version of this with a Heated Bed will be $2800.00 and will be introduced in 1st quarter 2013. Sounds like they just introduced it though, without showing it, hmmm...

"but then you can't sell your machines because of patents on the heated chamber for 3D printing."

seriously? someone patented a heated chamber? I thought the concept of an oven was pretty much old news at this point. I could see some proprietary method of keeping the motors cool being patentable, or a specifc heat delivery system, or some other unique process or hardware, but not the idea of a constant temperature enclosure. You happen to have a link to cite on that one?

I believe it is this one [patents.justia.com]

Quote

Disclosed is a three-dimensional modeling apparatus (10) that builds up three-dimensional objects in a heated build chamber (24) by dispensing modeling material from a dispensing head (14) onto a base (16) in a pattern determined by control signals from a controller (140). The motion control components (18, 20) of the apparatus (10) are external to and thermally isolated from the build chamber (24). A deformable thermal insulator (132) forms a ceiling of the building chamber, allowing motion control of the dispensing head (14) in an x, y plane by an x-y gantry (18) located outside of and insulated from the build chamber (24). In the preferred embodiment, a material dispensing outlet (66) of the dispensing head is inside the chamber. Thermal isolation of the motion control components from the build chamber allows the chamber to be maintained at a high temperature.

This is just the abstract. I am sure it would not stand up in court if you could afford the battle. Its pretty likely they would use it to ruin almost any company that tried selling a machine with heated environment and the main components outside of the heated area though.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Oh. I see, it's the cooling method, (or as they say, thermal isolation) as I suspected. I agree with your conclusions. It's all about having capital support to pay the lawyers and a unique method that very critically doesn't infringe on the unique elements of their design. Neither cooling nor heating fall into that category, nor does enclosure. Just the ability to clone their design and sell it without securing licensing rights to do so.

Thanks for the info Sublime.

> I also hear it is closed source (investors in the
> way?) which I believe is against the license they
> released the replicator 1 with and this is clearly
> a derivative of that printer.

As the author Makerbot is not bound to that license. The license only applies downstream.

I considered the two-headed makerbot and spoke to their salesman before going with the Makergear instead. I'm very glad for my decision now. I asked the salesman what their plans were for the next version/generation of printer and he said he couldn't say anything about it. My uneducated guess was they would be at least next year releasing a new version. Guess I was wrong, but I didn't like the idea of obsolescence at $2000 and made the right choice.

I like it.

Ill prob buy one in less than 12 months unless my brain learns faster on how to make my current 3d printer awesome/just as good as this one

Sublime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at the warping on
> the big white blocks in the Replicator 2 page, the
> side facing away from us and hidden behind the
> ruler is so warped it could be used to hold
> bananas.

I fail to see where that it's warped like you said. Honestly why the hatred? It's a good enough printer for people willing to shell out their money. It's not like they are lying about any of the advertised features.

the price will drop...

it looks like a damm fine product, something id be proud to have beside me pc!!!
if i was rich, id get one now!

I think we're in a state where real inovations in DIY 3D Printing have become quite rare. All those 'new' DIY 3D printers share the same technology everbody in this community is already familiar with. The difference is the marketing, that's all. Imo, the current inovations are made in software (e.g. slic3r) and materials science (accessing warping/curling issues). Does anybody know something about Makerbots specially fabricated Makerbot PLA or is it just their PLA they've sold for months? Because a new material for printing large objects without warping would be really interesting.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Motedis.ch - Aluprofile & Zubehör Schweiz
Sintratec - Desktop Laser Sintering 3D Printer
3dprinterkit.ch Blog
"Mendelmax 3dpk" Schritt für Schritt Anleitung
"RUGG3D" Schritt für Schritt Anleitung

I remember an article posted on the Makerbot blog a couple of years ago. Bre Pettis called out Techzone for not posting design files for one of their boards they were selling. Techzone has since disappeared, but because of them, Bre circa 2010 is 180° out of phase with Bre circa 2012.

Here is the post: Open Source Ethics and Dead End Derivatives - by Bre Pettis

It didn't sit well with me then, it is quite damning now.

In it, here are my specific problems with their new stance, Bre Pettis, in his own words:

"Sometimes an individual or a company makes a derivative of an open source project, goes to market with it and then doesn’t share their derivative designs with their changes. This is not only against the license, but it’s also not ethical. It is a dead end for the innovation and development which is the heart of the open source hardware community."

"At MakerBot, we take open source seriously. It’s a way of life for us. We share our design files when we release a project because we know that it’s important for our users to know that a MakerBot is not a black box. With MakerBot, you get not only a machine that makes things for you, but you also get an education into how the machine works and you can truly own it and have access to all the designs that went into it! When people take designs that are open and they close them, they are creating a dead end where people will not be able to understand their machines and they will not be able to develop on them." The "way of life" seems to have done an about face.

I especially like the line " MakerBot is not a black box." Apparently now it is both literally and figuratively.

"Open source hardware relies on ethics to work. It’s possible to legally chase down folks who break the terms of a license but in most cases the community will usually take care of it by confronting derivatives and not buying from individuals and companies that are building on others work and not releasing their source." - They touted open source, as long as it made them money, but quickly changed direction when it seems to profit them. I'm not against closed source companies or products, but you can't claim one thing and operate in an entirely different manner, unless you are hypocritical.

and finally, "The door is still open for them to make this right." Bre's own words. Was he right then, or now?

$2700 for the PLA + ABS hot bed version. Can we say not only no but a hell no for those prices? btw, their market is no longer you, me, or Joe/Jane Schmo it is businesses and frankly if I had a business I would rather buy 5 Prusa than 1 Replicator 2 since 5 will me more productivity.

Oh the irony...

Thank you Beekeeper, you made my day.

Beekeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember an article posted on the Makerbot blog
> a couple of years ago. Bre Pettis called out
> Techzone for not posting design files for one of
> their boards they were selling. Techzone has since
> disappeared, but because of them, Bre circa 2010
> is 180° out of phase with Bre circa 2012.
>
> Here is the post: Open Source Ethics and Dead End
> Derivatives - by Bre Pettis
>
> It didn't sit well with me then, it is quite
> damning now.
>
> In it, here are my specific problems with their
> new stance, Bre Pettis, in his own words:
>
> "Sometimes an individual or a company makes a
> derivative of an open source project, goes to
> market with it and then doesn’t share their
> derivative designs with their changes. This is not
> only against the license, but it’s also not
> ethical. It is a dead end for the innovation and
> development which is the heart of the open source
> hardware community."
>
> "At MakerBot, we take open source seriously.
> It’s a way of life for us. We share our design
> files when we release a project because we know
> that it’s important for our users to know that a
> MakerBot is not a black box. With MakerBot, you
> get not only a machine that makes things for you,
> but you also get an education into how the machine
> works and you can truly own it and have access to
> all the designs that went into it! When people
> take designs that are open and they close them,
> they are creating a dead end where people will not
> be able to understand their machines and they will
> not be able to develop on them." The "way of life"
> seems to have done an about face.
>
> I especially like the line " MakerBot is not a
> black box." Apparently now it is both literally
> and figuratively.
>
> "Open source hardware relies on ethics to work.
> It’s possible to legally chase down folks who
> break the terms of a license but in most cases the
> community will usually take care of it by
> confronting derivatives and not buying from
> individuals and companies that are building on
> others work and not releasing their source." -
> They touted open source, as long as it made them
> money, but quickly changed direction when it seems
> to profit them. I'm not against closed source
> companies or products, but you can't claim one
> thing and operate in an entirely different manner,
> unless you are hypocritical.
>
> and finally, "The door is still open for them to
> make this right." Bre's own words. Was he right
> then, or now?

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

I honetly don't care much for the TOS, none of them really stand up in court anyway, boo hoo they changed it in back in FEB, honestly it was deceptive that the only way they informed people was by a blog post... most normal companies send out at least a mass email, sometimes 2, then there is really no question as to weather you have been notified, not everyone visit thingiverse blogs like they do church

I don't really even care so much about the closed source nature of the replicator2... it's their company their printer they can do what they like, anyone who feels they've been ripped off on a design or component .. see a lawyer I'll even throw a dollar or two your way, i know a few people are already,

what erks me the most is that they have been clutching the open-source thing for a while now, while at the same time actually reproducing anything they've released is/was almost impossible(some has changed), classic example here

[www.thingiverse.com]

here is where they've released the source for the mk7 extruder, now unless you have a solid works package you can't do squat with it, yeah.. i know there is a viewer, yes i know there are a couple of pdf files in there.... the drive gear isn't one of them, not all machine shops in Australia have a copy of solid-works or are willing to take solidworks files,

.sldprt .slddrw .step are not drawing/common cad files and they aren't a source , at least not one the average person in bugger all of a budget to begin with can actually open,

thankfully the cupcake and thingomatic and replicator files are now as DXF, but this wasn't always the case,

I get the feeling this is another 3d systems being born, especially since they are going to kill of production of the current replicator, what does this mean for certain components?

the price of the new one is a bit on the nose for only the ability to print pla? wtf?

on the other side of things we've now got people pulling stuff off thingiverse, and starting a "githubiverse" i just hope that while people are pulling stuff of the thingiverse site they put a link to where the files will be hosted instead,

I have not yet pulled from Thingiverse myself as I am waiting for the dust to settle but I do agree with your stance about them telling us all, or should I say not telling us. Everything from my Creditcards to my email to my other forums I frequent all tell me when some policy has changed but apparently not on Thingiverse and I know I don't read blogs just as a matter of fact and Makerbot was no different.

I use Solidworks all the time and like it but I can't stand DXF (seems to be mucked up every single time I use it to go from one package to another and I am stuck with igs or stl).

My complaint is the gouging they are doing and how they got to where they are off the backs of us all all in the guise of being the good guy while really porking us all. I think a lot of people feel betrayed like a jilted lover and a betrayal of the open source movement.

Quote

Nozzzle Diameter: 0.4 mm [0.015 in]

Nice nozzzzzzzle.
I guess proofreaders were deemed an unnecessary investment?

(After all, it's not like they're selling their product at a 100% gross margin.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2012 07:06AM by orcinus.

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here is where they've released the source for the
> mk7 extruder, now unless you have a solid works
> package you can't do squat with it, yeah.. i know
> there is a viewer, yes i know there are a couple
> of pdf files in there.... the drive gear isn't one
> of them, not all machine shops in Australia have a
> copy of solid-works or are willing to take
> solidworks files,
>
> .sldprt .slddrw .step are not drawing/common cad
> files and they aren't a source , at least not one
> the average person in bugger all of a budget to
> begin with can actually open,

I think what you are trying to say is right but youre putting it wrong, Solidworks or Inventor or Unigraphics is the ONLY way of giving a 3D model in a opensource way. As STL is not a filetype you can alter or do whatever you want. You could say use google sketch up or smt but why would that be needed if you have solidworks. I have it and if i would give away my models i would give the Solidworks file with it so you can truely adept to to whatever you want.

so dont comment that those are not common CAD files because in fact they are. Google sketch up just needs a import way for those files. I dont like sketch up for instance, i tried to alter a file from someone in SU but it failed missarably as there are no references like SW has.....